Miniaturists and Zoneheads: So, you want to do 35mm B&W, do you?
Michael Scarpitti
(the
early 1930's) and under several conditions that no longer exist:
1. Papers with a single grade of contrast
2. Emulsions coated with more than one layer
3. Large Format negatives
4. and a low degree of enlargement, or no enlargement at all (i.e.,
contact printing)
The procedure was designed to 'fit the negative to the paper' because
that was the only way to do it. Many papers were not available in
different grades, or in only a very limited range of contrast at best.
Remember at that time platinum printing (which allows contact printing
only) was still quite popular, and this required a very vigorous,
contrasty negative. Enlarging papers were rare, as most serious work
was by contact pinting.
To 'fit the negative to the paper', the time of negative development
was changed up or down (from a 'norm' called 'N') until the negative's
range of tones filled the range of tones of the paper from black to
white, numbered in Roman numerals (!) from I through X.
All of this, of course, predated wide-spread use of 35mm cameras in
the US.
At around the same time that AA was developing his Zone System, the
Leica had appeared in Germany (1925) and became an immediate
sensation. The motto of its inventor, Oskar Barnak, was 'small
negative-big picture'.
From the outset, though, the little Leica negatives presented quality
problems that limited the size of the 'big picture' if quality
standards were very strict at all. The film sources initially were
cast-off from reels of
motion picture film. If you've ever seen an old movie from that
period, you know that films were not of the quality that they are now.
Films were slow and grainy compared to what we have today.
Panchromatic films
were not introduced until the early 1930's (1933?) and only ortho
films were available before that. Early efforts by users of miniature
cameras in the 1930's (at least in the US) consisted of efforts to
minimise graininess. It immediately became apparent that the small
film had to be developed much less than the large format films to have
even barely acceptable fineness of grain. Elaborate developers were
concocted
with numerous ingredients of questionable value, and exposures had to
be increased significantly over 'normal'. In 1927, though, Kodak had
introduced D-76 for motion-picture film, and it was the first
developer to combine full
exploitation of film speed and sharpness together with fine grain,
which was accomplished by using sodium sulphite in larger
concentrations than is necessary simply to preserve the developing
agents, which was the only role for SS before D-76. Such a developer
is called 'excess sulphite'.
In Germany, however, Windisch and Beutler had other ideas. They came
up with acutance and surface-acting developers that did not strive for
fine grain, but rather emphasized sharpness above all else. Soon,
miniature photographers in Europe adopted these formulae with
considerable success. Later, in the 1950's, Dr. Schneider would design
thin-emulsion films, manufactured by the Adox company, as he
understood that the lack of sharpness that Windisch and Beutler were
trying to solve was caused by the thick double or triple-coated
emulsions
common at that time. These thick emulsions allowed light to scatter,
and the fine-grain developers in use in the US (Champlain, etc) did
nothing to address that. Schneider realised that the film would have
to be thinner if sharper images were to be obtained. Thus the KB14,
KB17, and KB21 films were born.
Back in the US, however, aside from a few photographers who worked
with Leicas and Contaxes for Life Magazine, which premiered in 1936,
'serious' photography was in the hands of view camera users, and press
photography in the hands of Graflex users. Both groups sneered at the
miserable little postage-stamp negative and grainy prints that
miniature photographers produced.
When Leica introduced the M2/M3 cameras in the mid-1950's, followed by
Nikon's
introduction of the F camera in 1960, miniature users finally had the
tools they needed to produce work that could be taken seriously. New
films from Kodak (Tri-X and Plus-X) had been introduced in the
mid-fifties as well. Kodachrome had been perfected introduced 1936)
and was widely available. Many other manufacturers had entered the B&W
market for miniature film, and variable-contrast paper was available
from Dupont under the trade-name Varigam.
By the end of the 50's, Geoffrey Crawley in England had begun to
investigate the possibility of improving the relationship among speed,
sharpness, and graininess, as it was his belief that D76 was not the
best developer theoretically possible, as the increased demand for
speed and fine grain made by the news and documentary photographers
using 35mm equipment began to be felt. The results of his research
were a series of developers manufactured by Paterson, pre-eminent
among them Acutol, which, combined with medium or slow-speed films,
finally gave the miniature worker something that approached the
potential that his lenses offered.
The formulas of Windisch and Beutler, though they enhanced sharpness,
did also have the unfavourable effect of increasing graininess and
compressing mid-range gradation excessively. Crawley understood that
moderate compression--which affects primarily the highlight areas and
leaves the mid-tones largely unaffected--was desirable. Acutol
achieves this goal.
With Acutol, miniature workers could finally enjoy reasonably fine
grain and high sharpness together with good tonality. Since
long rolls of film made individual development of negatives
impractical, the benefits of developers such as Acutol, called
semi-compensating, were immediately evident. Other developers such as
D76 were discovered to have similar characteristics when diluted 1:1
or 1:3. The use of diluted developers became the norm among advanced
miniature workers during the 1960's. It was found that a high degree
of uniformity of negative contrast was obtained due to the
compensating effects. Both brilliant and less brilliant scenes were
recorded within a narrow range of negative densities, and thus the
small changes necessary in print contrast to adjust from one negative
to the next were easily handled by variable contrast papers, which now
include entries
from Kodak (Polycontrast and Polycontrast Rapid).
Meanwhile, Ansel Adams and his devotees (calling themselves 'fine-art
photographers' continued on their merry way with expansions and
contractions on sheet film. By the late 1960's, he had become quite
famous. Some workers new to photography at that time took up 35mm
cameras and attempted to copy the Adams style and techniques. What
they did not understand, though, was that large changes of development
times applied to 35mm film are not desirable. The emulsions that Kodak
had introduced in the 1950's (Tri-x and Plus-X) were radically
different in construction and performance from the ones Adams had used
in the 1930's. They were designed not to change as much in contrast
when developed at different times, as they were intended for the
hobbyist and newsman, whose technique might generously be called
'casual'.
As a result, these films did not behave according to ZS principles,
which were founded on the old 1930's films. Longer developing times,
when applied to 35mm films, proved disasterous: they contributed more
to excessive graininess and loss of sharpness than to anything else.
The small negative cannot really tolerate the massive swings in
developing times called for in ZS theory. Other, far better means for
securing control of print contrast exist, with even better variable
contrast papers available today than in the 1960's, papers that Adams
could only dream about when he formulated the ZS.
Around the same time, the Zone System entered the academic realm, and
became a staple of university photography department courses.
Institutionalized in this way, the whole Adams approach was dragged
along with it. 'Previsualization' became a code word, and entered the
vocabulary of the new 'fine art photography' phenomenon. No
self-respecting 'serious' photographer could afford not to be a
Zonehead.
These two groups--the miniaturists and the Zoneheads--seldom came into
contact with each other, which perhaps accounts for the fact that each
group knew little of the other's practices. Zoneheads continue to this
day to attempt to treat 35mm as nothing but a little view camera, and
attempt to apply ZS dogma, however inappropriate that may be. Most
miniaturists perhaps have little contact with the view camera, and
even less knowledge of how to use one.
Almost anyone contemplating 'serious' photography, no matter whether
35mm, roll, or view camera, was immediately buttonholed, and
indoctrinated into the Zone System, its language and mysteries,
without regard to the intended type of photography or format to be
used.
Those who were not aware of the quite distinct and unique history of
35mm B&W practise, especially European practise, were easily swept
down into the Zone System maelstrom. To question it was tantamount to
heresy. Shame, derision, and scorn were heaped upon any that dared
question the gods Ansel Adams or Minor White.
How do I know this? It has happened to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, you want to do 35mm B&W:
You may have made this argument to yourself:
1. I'm interested in obtaining the best quality in my B&W work.
2. The Zone System is supposed to give terrific quality in B&W
photography. I've seen those really incredible images by Ansel Adams,
so I guess that's the way to go.
3. I have a 35mm camera.
4. I should apply the Zone System to my work to make it look good.
5. It's not possible to develop individual negatives in 35mm
6. How do I handle that?
The problem is that those incredible B&W images were NOT made with a
35mm camera, nor with films like today's.
The questions should be the following:
1. I have a 35mm camera.
2. I'm interested in obtaining the best quality in my B&W work.
3. What should I do?
The answers are as follows:
1. Try a variety of films, based on your area of interest. I suggest
you start with Ilford FP4 for routine summer-time daylight photos and
Kodak Tri-X for fast action work. You may need to a trifle more
exposure (1/3-1/2 stop) than the ISO rating suggests.
2. Get a condenser enlarger with the best lens you can afford.
3. D-76 1:1 is a good developer for starters.
4. Develop your film about 20% less than the Kodak standard times,
because those times are for diffusion enlargers. By doing this, you'll
get sharper, finer-grained negatives. The use of a condenser enlarger
will make up for the lower contrast that the shorter developing time
will give you.
4. Your negatives should typically print on grade 3 filters or on
graded paper #3.
Because the developer is diluted, it exhausts itself quicker in areas
of heavy density. This has the same effect in the highlights as a Zone
System contraction, but unlike a 'minus' development, it affects only
the highlights, not the whole negative. This is good, because
mid-tones don't suffer loss of contrast as they do on 'minus'
development.
The reverse effect occurs in the shadows. The shadows gain strength
and contrast in relation to undiluted development, and the effect is
like a Zone System expansion, but this affects only the shadow areas.
So, you end up with a negative that is easier to print, and all your
negatives will tend to fall within the same range of density, making
your life much easier for printing.
mmmkay?
Nick Zentena
Did you copy this straight out of one of Adam's books?
Nick
--
"It is a mistake, however, to assume that the Zone System therefore 'does
not work' with roll-film cameras; since it is a practical expression of
sensitometric principles, the Zone System remains valid, even though its use
is somewhat different." Adams _The_Negative_
Barrett Benton
Although I seem to recall none other than Bill pierce making a similar
argument in an August/September 1974 issue of Camera 35 magazine
("You've got 1 [2, 3?] seconds. Can you Zone this?"). Then, as now, it
makes sense. But there's no need to kick sand in the face of
large-format devotees about this.
Of course, this is going to be one mother of a thread, anyway...
--
BWB
_______________________
Impatience is virtual
Frank Pittel
The fact that I will be using the zone system to determine exposure in all
but the most rare of situations is a given.
<stupidity ignoring the fact that AA used the zone system with a 35mm
deleted>
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Frank Pittel
death by scarpitti and his troll like ways.
Barrett Benton <bwbe...@bellatlantic.spamoff> wrote:
: Umm...right. :-)
: Although I seem to recall none other than Bill pierce making a similar
: argument in an August/September 1974 issue of Camera 35 magazine
: ("You've got 1 [2, 3?] seconds. Can you Zone this?"). Then, as now, it
: makes sense. But there's no need to kick sand in the face of
: large-format devotees about this.
: Of course, this is going to be one mother of a thread, anyway...
--
Richard Knoppow
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com...
I really should to extensive snipping here but perhaps its
best if all of the above is kept.
There is some confusion of history above. Graded paper was
available in the 1920s although I don't know when it first
became available. Probably as long as silver gelatin paper
has been made (1890s).
Some papers were made in one grade only. Typically special
purpose portrait papers came in only "normal" grade because
they were for use in printing studio negatives made with
controlled lighting and exposure. Other papers came in many
contrast grades.
Adams, Minor White, and Fred Archer came up with the Zone
System in the late 1930s or early 1940s. It didn't really
catch on until after WW-2. It was not designed so much to
standardize negatives but to insure getting printable ones.
Adams had had trouble with underexposed or otherwise
difficult negatives.
Films of the 1940s were actually pretty good. Most had
enough latitude to record average scenes with some margin
for incorrect exposure. At the time Loyd Jones did his work
at Kodak overexposures of six stops would still produce
tonal rendition hard to distinguish from an optimum
exposure.
I am not sure the popular explnation of how compensating
developers work is correct. For one thing the reducing
agents do not get "used up". The slowing down is more from
the accumulation of bromide and other reaction products in a
way where they can not diffuse out of the emulsion rapidly
enough. Some reducing agents have reaction products which
actually accelerate development (hydroquinone for instance).
The mechanism of these developers is not simple or trivial.
Also, a compensating developer essentially creates a
shoulder on the film curve. That is, the contrast is lowered
for high exposure areas. If this goes far enough there is no
longer any highlight detail; not so good.
In general I agree that the Zone System is not directly
applicable to roll film except where all exposures are made
of the same subject with the same lighting. However, it can
be useful in understanding how exposure control works.
I think the area of confusion of Zone System work is in
thinking that exposure is very critical: it isn't as long as
there is enough. About the only place exposure is really
critical is in reversal work, i.e., color transparencies,
because there isn't a second process to correct the first.
While the post war emulsions of Kodak and others were
quite different from those of the 1920s (and so were films
of the 1930s) the idea that they changed contrast more
gradually with development is simply not correct as can be
seen from the old data sheets. What IS true is that they had
greater latitude mainly because they were capable of
achieving greater density. That is, they did not shoulder
off as soon as the older films. As a result one could give
them more exposure without having truely blocked highlights.
The rate films changed contrast was about the same as the
rate current "conventional" films do. It varies with the
developer but is around +/- 30% for a one grade change.
Another aspect of the Zone System as originally developed
is that it attempted to take into account the innacuracies
of shutters, stops, and also flare. Actually not much can be
done about flare except to either change the lens or change
to a film with a shorter toe. However, one can experiment
with practical exposure to find what to do about innaccurate
shutters. These days its probably easier to buy a shutter
tester.
35mm photography _does_ have the special requirement of
avoiding overly dense negatives because of the loss of
sharpness. Loyd Jones was aware of this when conducting his
tests to find a practical method of rating film speed. His
goal was to find the _minimum_ esposure which would result
in an "excellent" print. For larger negatives this is not so
important since the tone rendition does not change much with
overexposure and small scale changes in resolution and
acutance don't mean so much. But is is probably wise to
expose and develop for relatively thin negatives for 35mm.
It think too much is being made of this.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Frank Pittel
for clearing things up.
Richard Knoppow <dick...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
--
Fėdor Pavlovic'
interesting, thanks ;)
Jörgen Persson
> The procedure was designed to 'fit the negative to the paper'
> because that was the only way to do it.
Yes
> Many papers were not available in different grades, or in only
> a very limited range of contrast at best.
...but that didn't concern him when it came to exposure and
development. What did concern him was the paper Dmax. The paper
contrast is something the copyist chooses. Anyway... Adams
himself said that excessive N+/- development doesn't suit small
negatives.
You've studied philosophy, right? Don't you see the two aspects
of the zone system -- the tools and the purpose? He described a
technical method (and it doesn't suit me) but /why/ did he do
it? That is what matters. What was his purpose? He did it to be
able to visualize the final image before it was done. What's
wrong with that? I think that is an honourable purpose. I see
nothing wrong in trying to achive the same purpose, eg through
his ''soft'' methods. Though how hard it is (if possible)
depends on your tools and your prerequisites. You've got your
tools, prerequisites and purposes and I've got mine. Thank God
for diversity.
What's really fun... It took Adams 38 pages to describe the zone
system. How hard can it be? :)
Michael Scarpitti
Richard: Thank you for filling in the gaps in my sketch of the
history.
You musn't forget, though, that Adams comes from the tradition of LF
that included platinum orinting, where no contrast control in printing
was possible, as far as I know.
>
> I really should to extensive snipping here but perhaps its
> best if all of the above is kept.
> There is some confusion of history above. Graded paper was
> available in the 1920s although I don't know when it first
> became available. Probably as long as silver gelatin paper
> has been made (1890s).
> Some papers were made in one grade only. Typically special
> purpose portrait papers came in only "normal" grade because
> they were for use in printing studio negatives made with
> controlled lighting and exposure. Other papers came in many
> contrast grades.
> Adams, Minor White, and Fred Archer came up with the Zone
> System in the late 1930s or early 1940s. It didn't really
> catch on until after WW-2. It was not designed so much to
> standardize negatives but to insure getting printable ones.
> Adams had had trouble with underexposed or otherwise
> difficult negatives.
> Films of the 1940s were actually pretty good.
They were good enough for LF, not so good for 35mm. That's the key
issue. The films introduced in the 50's were much better (thinner),
and had to be treated somewhat differently because of that.
>Most had
> enough latitude to record average scenes with some margin
> for incorrect exposure. At the time Loyd Jones did his work
> at Kodak overexposures of six stops would still produce
> tonal rendition hard to distinguish from an optimum
> exposure.
> I am not sure the popular explnation of how compensating
> developers work is correct. For one thing the reducing
> agents do not get "used up".
The low concentration of developing agent is 'exhausted' in some
formulae, such as FX-1. That includes several chemical reactions,
including bromide supression, I believe.
> The slowing down is more from
> the accumulation of bromide and other reaction products in a
> way where they can not diffuse out of the emulsion rapidly
> enough. Some reducing agents have reaction products which
> actually accelerate development (hydroquinone for instance).
> The mechanism of these developers is not simple or trivial.
> Also, a compensating developer essentially creates a
> shoulder on the film curve. That is, the contrast is lowered
> for high exposure areas.
Yes, and this is generally desirable for small format work on a
condenser enlarger. The condensers tend to exaggerate contrast in the
heavier areas, and the compensating effect complements this nicely.
> If this goes far enough there is no
> longer any highlight detail; not so good.
That's indeed why I prefer Acutol to Neofin Blue.
> In general I agree that the Zone System is not directly
> applicable to roll film except where all exposures are made
> of the same subject with the same lighting. However, it can
> be useful in understanding how exposure control works.
With this I can agree.
> I think the area of confusion of Zone System work is in
> thinking that exposure is very critical: it isn't as long as
> there is enough.
Also agree here. In 35mm work, however, this is less latitude than in
LF work.
> About the only place exposure is really
> critical is in reversal work, i.e., color transparencies,
> because there isn't a second process to correct the first.
> While the post war emulsions of Kodak and others were
> quite different from those of the 1920s (and so were films
> of the 1930s) the idea that they changed contrast more
> gradually with development is simply not correct as can be
> seen from the old data sheets. What IS true is that they had
> greater latitude mainly because they were capable of
> achieving greater density. That is, they did not shoulder
> off as soon as the older films. As a result one could give
> them more exposure without having truely blocked highlights.
> The rate films changed contrast was about the same as the
> rate current "conventional" films do. It varies with the
> developer but is around +/- 30% for a one grade change.
> Another aspect of the Zone System as originally developed
> is that it attempted to take into account the innacuracies
> of shutters, stops, and also flare. Actually not much can be
> done about flare except to either change the lens or change
> to a film with a shorter toe. However, one can experiment
> with practical exposure to find what to do about innaccurate
> shutters. These days its probably easier to buy a shutter
> tester.
Yes, orthodox ZS requires a heavier exposure higher up on the curve
than is ideal for 35mm work, to get better shadow tone separation.
> 35mm photography _does_ have the special requirement of
> avoiding overly dense negatives because of the loss of
> sharpness. Loyd Jones was aware of this when conducting his
> tests to find a practical method of rating film speed. His
> goal was to find the _minimum_ esposure which would result
> in an "excellent" print. For larger negatives this is not so
> important since the tone rendition does not change much with
> overexposure and small scale changes in resolution and
> acutance don't mean so much. But is is probably wise to
> expose and develop for relatively thin negatives for 35mm.
> It think too much is being made of this.
Perhaps, but I thought I'd get it out into the open. We have these two
'traditions' colliding and causing confusion for newbies and others
who want to do good 35mm B&W work.
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > The procedure was designed to 'fit the negative to the paper'
> > because that was the only way to do it.
>
> Yes
>
>
> > Many papers were not available in different grades, or in only
> > a very limited range of contrast at best.
>
> ...but that didn't concern him when it came to exposure and
> development. What did concern him was the paper Dmax. The paper
> contrast is something the copyist chooses. Anyway... Adams
> himself said that excessive N+/- development doesn't suit small
> negatives.
Then why do 'others' not heed his advice?
>
> You've studied philosophy, right? Don't you see the two aspects
> of the zone system -- the tools and the purpose?
Of course I do. The problem is the ZS 'thinking'. I don't 'think'
consciously when I make a photo. It has more in common with sports
than anything else. It just 'happens'. Some of my best work has been
composed in under two seconds. I just 'react', without 'thinking',
much the same way a tennis player or linebacker does. My skill with
the camera is such that I can take my Leicaflex and set any exposure
with the camera behind my back, without thinking. I feel that others
should also be given exposure to this kind of approach, which is
common to the reportage side of photography. Too much attention is
being paid to tonality, and not enough to content.
> He described a
> technical method (and it doesn't suit me) but /why/ did he do
> it? That is what matters. What was his purpose? He did it to be
> able to visualize the final image before it was done.
That's the problem. I don't previsualize in any formal sense, and
never will. It causes 'thinking'. 'Thinking' slows down my creative
act. People using 35mm cameras should not be 'thinking' either. They
should learn to compose on the fly, react to a situation and come up
with a sensitive, artistic rendition, and all in an instant.
Jörgen Persson
> Jörgen Persson <jpn-...@tlth.lth.se> wrote in message news:<bi1v4o$49q31$1...@ID-56810.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>> but /why/ did he do it? That is what matters. What was his
>> purpose? He did it to be able to visualize the final image
>> before it was done.
>
> That's the problem. I don't previsualize in any formal sense,
> and never will. It causes 'thinking'. 'Thinking' slows down my
> creative act.
Being deliberate ought to require 'thinking'. You where
obviously 'thinking' when you took this image[1]. Maybe it
isn't representative for your work but what does a bunch of
unrepresentative pictures say about a photographer?
[1] http://zd.csimultimedia.com/photo01.htm
> People using 35mm cameras should not be 'thinking' either.
> They should learn to compose on the fly, react to a situation
> and come up with a sensitive, artistic rendition, and all in
> an instant.
True, the amount of visualization depends on the situation, and?
I don't think much when I do street photo but I do think twice
about the light conditions /before/ I head out.
We are back to ''tools, prerequisites and purpose'', aren't
we? I've said it before and I say it again -- Thank God for
diversity.
Mark Wolenski
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com...
news:<wqX0b.1547$Ej6...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> You musn't forget, though, that Adams comes from the tradition of LF
> that included platinum orinting, where no contrast control in printing
> was possible, as far as I know.
I was in a George Tice (http://www.afterimagegallery.com/tice.htm)
workshop about 20 years ago where he demonstrated plaladium printing. By
simple changes to the mixture, quite a range of printing contrasts could be
achieved.
Take a look at
<http://jkschreiber.home.mindspring.com/articles/ptpdoutline.html> for a
discussion. BTW, George is listed in the bibliography.
Norman Worth
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com...
> consciously when I make a photo. It has more in common with sports
> than anything else. It just 'happens'. Some of my best work has been
> composed in under two seconds. I just 'react', without 'thinking',
> much the same way a tennis player or linebacker does. My skill with
> the camera is such that I can take my Leicaflex and set any exposure
> with the camera behind my back, without thinking. I feel that others
> should also be given exposure to this kind of approach, which is
> common to the reportage side of photography. Too much attention is
> being paid to tonality, and not enough to content.
>
You can also explore the subject thoroughly with a minimum of work. When in
doubt, you can economically overshoot. For some subjects, tonality counts a
lot. The 35mm shooter usually brackets exposures and compensates in the
darkroom when this is the case. They also develop a way of seeing where
subtle tonality counts less.
>
> That's the problem. I don't previsualize in any formal sense, and
> never will. It causes 'thinking'. 'Thinking' slows down my creative
> act. People using 35mm cameras should not be 'thinking' either. They
> should learn to compose on the fly, react to a situation and come up
> with a sensitive, artistic rendition, and all in an instant.
>
to use different techniques (a little different) for different subjects. I
know several people who use tripods consistently with 35mm. That's not a
method for fast, intuitive work, but it gets some nice sharp images. For
them, previsualization and spot metering (asigning key elements to zones,
effectively) can be beneficial. I still claim that there is no substitute
for square inches to produce a quality negative, but I do love the
portability and ease of use of my 35.
Michael Scarpitti
I did not know this. It's been a while since I read about the
platiunum or paladoim processes. Was this true back in the old days
too?
You'll note that the density range for this kind of printing is far
greater than what we sue today.
Michael A. Covington
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com...
> (the
> early 1930's) and under several conditions that no longer exist:
[very long and interesting article ensues...]
That's interesting, Michael, and I tend to agree with it. One might add
that Ansel Adams was not, himself, a Zone System fanatic, particularly as
applied to roll film. It's obvious from his books that, like all great
craftsmen, he believed in using the tools that worked well for any
particular job.
If I recall correctly, some modern b&w films are still multilayer, but the
total thickness is considerably less than in the 1940s.
I realize that by now, flame wars have become traditional here, but you've
given us some useful information which squares well with my own reading and
experience in the same area. Especially crucial is the fact that modern
roll films are, by old-time standards, underdeveloped; that gives them fine
grain and exposure latitude.
--
Clear skies,
Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope
Michael A. Covington
"Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
news:zL6dnYEatoX...@giganews.com...
>
> <stupidity ignoring the fact that AA used the zone system with a 35mm
> deleted>
There is a sense in which the Zone System is simply basic sensitometry, and
everyone should understand it. But I often think in terms of three zones
instead of ten. (Detailed shadow, midtone, and detailed highlight.)
Michael A. Covington
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com...
>
> never will. It causes 'thinking'. 'Thinking' slows down my creative
> act. People using 35mm cameras should not be 'thinking' either. They
> should learn to compose on the fly, react to a situation and come up
> with a sensitive, artistic rendition, and all in an instant.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Many of us use 35-mm cameras to work just as
carefully as other people do with sheet-film cameras. Also, I think
"thinking" turns into instinct as you get more experience with it -- not as
you try to avoid it altogether.
The Zone System (or rather the related sensitometry) is, of course, also the
basis of matrix metering and similar auto exposure systems that measure the
range, not just the average brightness.
Frank Pittel
: I predict this will be a reasonably short thread. It's been trolled to
: death by scarpitti and his troll like ways.
: Barrett Benton <bwbe...@bellatlantic.spamoff> wrote:
: : Umm...right. :-)
: : Although I seem to recall none other than Bill pierce making a similar
: : argument in an August/September 1974 issue of Camera 35 magazine
: : ("You've got 1 [2, 3?] seconds. Can you Zone this?"). Then, as now, it
: : makes sense. But there's no need to kick sand in the face of
: : large-format devotees about this.
: : Of course, this is going to be one mother of a thread, anyway...
What did I tell you this thread is all trolled out.
Jeff Novick
"Michael A. Covington" <Mic...@CovingtonInnovations.com> wrote in message
news:ESmdnZvmfNx...@speedfactory.net...
over a LF one. But, when it comes to 'careful' work, probably on a tripod,
why would one choose 35 over LF? This is mostly a black and white question.
When I'm shooting 35mm slides for clients of their art objects, I choose
35mm because that's the medium that galleries want to see. But, if it's for
your own work, why would anyone want to shoot 35mm after experiencing LF or
MF? I'm not trying to be an elitist by asking this question. Just curious
about why some photographers choose 35 for 'careful' work.
As far as thinking when shooting or composing, it's going on at a very fast
rate in your brain whether you are aware of it or not. If you choose to call
it 'not thinking' or 'intuition' that is your choice. It's still thinking at
an accelerated rate. I'm not sure you can survive without thinking.
Peter De Smidt
> There are reasons and situations that one would choose to use a 35mm
camera
> over a LF one. But, when it comes to 'careful' work, probably on a tripod,
> why would one choose 35 over LF? This is mostly a black and white
question.
> When I'm shooting 35mm slides for clients of their art objects, I choose
> 35mm because that's the medium that galleries want to see. But, if it's
for
> your own work, why would anyone want to shoot 35mm after experiencing LF
or
> MF? I'm not trying to be an elitist by asking this question. Just curious
> about why some photographers choose 35 for 'careful' work.
Check out some of Eddie Ephraums's work. One way would be to look at his
book _Creative Elements: Darkroom Techniques for Landscape Photography_ You
get a different look with 35mm significantly enlarged than you would from a
large format negative printed to the same size,. a look that can be used for
artistic effect. The print enlarged from 35mm gives more a an
impressionistic effect. Or consider the photographer's that like huge
grain. Clearly they don't think that fine grain and high resolution are
necessary for an effective photograph. Or consider Ansel Adams's arch rival,
William Mortensen. He advocated developing 35mm film to completion., as he
was much more interested in, to use his words, "maximizing the number of
half tones in a low contrast subject" than he was in minimizing grain. Or
consider the people who use some type of soft filter or lens. Again, while
fine grain and high resolution might usually be very important, there are a
significant number of a cases where accomplished artists valued other
photographic aspects more highly. As such, making categorical
pronouncements about the 'best' techniques for 35mm photography is
ridiculous. Clearly, what's best depends on one's goals, and since a brief
look at the history of 35mm photography shows abundant diversity, the
diversity of goals entails a diversity of 'bests'.
-Peter De Smidt
Ondrej Pokluda
for
> your own work, why would anyone want to shoot 35mm after experiencing LF
or
> MF? I'm not trying to be an elitist by asking this question. Just curious
> about why some photographers choose 35 for 'careful' work.
>
- cost. For majority of people *AROUND THE WORLD*, decent 35mm SLR
is expensive enough. Anything larger (decent) is beyond their savings and
imagination.
- size. When traveling I take 35mm SLR in cabin luggage, I usually manage
to put tripod in checked luggage but there is no way I can safely take
both MF and 35mm, not after 9/11 not in a safe way. Of course, when I go to
my
neighborhood I pack car with all stuff I have.
Regards,
Ondrej
Jörgen Persson
> People using 35mm cameras should not be 'thinking' either.
> They should learn to compose on the fly, react to a situation
> and come up with a sensitive, artistic rendition, and all in
> an instant.
Hmmm... I was expecting a reaction to my previous post so I kept
an ace up in my sleave. I really want to show it to you, not to
bash you but to make you think.
You write about 'should not'. How can you be creative when you
are bound to laws?
I've understood that you are no fan of nature photography and
I've also understood that you belive that they shouldn't work
with 35 mm but with larger formats. There are several examples
of great 35 mm nature photographers but let me show you an
international underdog (but he is well know in Scandinavia),
Terje Hellesö.
He is working more or less exclusivly with 35 mm. He is a slow
photographer who wants to see the image in his head before he
wants to capture it -- but don't let that decieve you. He knows
how to act quickly with his camera (look att his images of
animals). I would say his photos are both sensitive, artistic
and with good technical quality.
He is no ''zonie'' but he is a slow thinker and you say one
shouldn't be a slow thinker with a 35 mm camera. He can motivate
his 35 mm choice but I think he does it through his images.
Do you belive he has to motivate his choice? Do you belive
he should be a better photographer if he worked with larger
formats? He tried, but didn't like it.
Mark Wolenski
platinum/palladium prints of the same scene
http://www.afterimagegallery.com/ticeprices.htm
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > People using 35mm cameras should not be 'thinking' either.
> > They should learn to compose on the fly, react to a situation
> > and come up with a sensitive, artistic rendition, and all in
> > an instant.
>
> Hmmm... I was expecting a reaction to my previous post so I kept
> an ace up in my sleave. I really want to show it to you, not to
> bash you but to make you think.
>
> You write about 'should not'. How can you be creative when you
> are bound to laws?
I would like to see more photography along the lines of HCB,
Eisenstadt, and others of the same mold. That's my style: blitzkrieg
composition and instant reaction. My best B&W work was always the
stuff that took the least time. Always. In some cases, I had to wait
for the subject to move into the right place to create a shadow that I
had anticipated before I saw it. That's 'pre-composition', composing a
shot before it can even happen! I want to see more emphasis on
spontaneous compositional skills. Almost anybody can do it if you give
him enough time. How many can do it in 2 seconds?
> I've understood that you are no fan of nature photography and
> I've also understood that you belive that they shouldn't work
> with 35 mm but with larger formats.
Not true. I have done lots of nature photography myself, mostly in
color.
What repulses me is the 'fine-art' rocks and trees zonehead work that
we have been subjected to for the last 15 years or so. It all looks
the same. It looks like the zonehead took six weeks to set up the
shot, metered the highlight and shadow detail with a spot meter,
developed it to N-infinity, and printed on Oriental Penguin paper #2.
No spontaneity at all. No human interest. No drama. No tension. No
excitement. Just damned rocks and trees. I'm sick of it. These people
have a mental problem. That's my complaint. They're passing off their
psychotherapy sessions as artwork. These people even all look the
same. Nice trimmed beard, photo vest, western hat, Gitzo tripod. It's
like they all came from some 'Twilight Zone' episode. It's a
peculiarly American phenomenon, too. I don't see so much of this kind
of dreck coming from Europe.
To me, it looks some sort of withdrawl from the world after the
sixties and Viet Nam. The 60's and 70's were quite disturbing years
for many. The photography of the times depicted civil rights marches,
radicals, war protests, assasinations, wars, political upheavals,
urban blight, etc. For some people, this may have been overwhelming. I
think as a result, some of these people have retreated to their
Montana hide-aways and turned their backs on the world. The 'zone
system' itself is a kind of security blanket, as it allows, they
believe, 'control', which some of these people crave in an
uncontrollable world. Chaos and strife are stressful. Rocks and trees
with zone system 'control' is the perfect antidote. The results are
more accurately described as 'Prozac-scapes'. It's no coincidence that
the word 'control' often pops up so much in zonehead-speak.
Jeff Novick
"Peter De Smidt" <pdes...@dotnet.com> wrote in message
news:3f45c154$0$40209$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
I've always liked Ephraums work and in particular, his grainy images. In my
own work, I am drawn to lith printing which can create a lot of grain
depending on the paper and technique used in development. But, I can control
the grain if I want it or not so I will usually shoot with a larger format
than 35mm to maximize detail, resolution, etc. If I want to discard these
things, I can do so in the darkroom. I will have 2 choices available to me.
I realize the convenience of 35mm and use it in my work, but, the choices
that larger formats give me far outweigh those conveniences. My original
question was about why photographers who do 'careful' studies choose a 35mm
for their camera instead of larger formats. The same look can be gotten and
so much more. Please don't get me wrong about my enquiry. I'm not trying to
be an elitist but to understand the thinking about the choice. It just seems
to me that the artistic choices increase when you use larger film.
Patrick Gainer
"Michael A. Covington" wrote:
I seem to remember that Ansel Adams loved the natural beauty of his country and
set out to record it faithfully and artistically to help those who want to
preserve it. He had a go at the kind of "fine art" photography where the
attempt is made to create "Painterly" works. Maybe those photographers thought
they were more likely to be accepted in galleries if their photos didn't look
like photos. To Adams, I think the beauty of nature was worth preserving as he
saw it, by the most accurate renditions he could muster. Of course, photographs
are inherently abstract. We can't get away from it. So are the paintings of the
same scenery, even when every effort is made to "fool the eye."
Just a comment, not an accusation.
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > Jörgen Persson <jpn-...@tlth.lth.se> wrote in message news:<bi1v4o$49q31$1...@ID-56810.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> >> He described a technical method (and it doesn't suit me)
> >> but /why/ did he do it? That is what matters. What was his
> >> purpose? He did it to be able to visualize the final image
> >> before it was done.
> >
> > That's the problem. I don't previsualize in any formal sense,
> > and never will. It causes 'thinking'. 'Thinking' slows down my
> > creative act.
>
> Being deliberate ought to require 'thinking'. You where
> obviously 'thinking' when you took this image[1]. Maybe it
> isn't representative for your work but what does a bunch of
> unrepresentative pictures say about a photographer?
This is going to be fairly lengthy, so bear with me.
As in the performance of a skilled athlete, the thinking that once may
have occured as a novice has been wrapped up into a set of almost
instinctive responses. It is no longer a conscious effort. I respond
to the situation, but do not 'think' about it. In that response are
contained the fruits of thousands of previous attempts, some
succesful, some not. I have played tennis for 28 years, and began at
the age of 25. I began photography with a 35m camera in 1965, at the
age of 15. Almost anyone who plays a sport and begins it young will
have an advantage in learning the automatic responses. It's physically
impossible for someone to learn a sport as well after the age of about
20 as he can when starting around 7 or 8. The same thing applies to
photography. My nervous system is so used to making pictures that it
has more in common with an athlete than an artist. It's natural that I
should expect others to strive for the same sort of skills as I have.
When I photographed sports at OSU, I became aware of my timing
abilities. One more than one occasion, I took pictures of the kickoffs
at football games in which the kicker's boot has penetrated the ball,
that is, the ball is deformed, but the ball is still absolutely
stationary on the tee. I did this not just once or twice, but perhaps
a dozen times. That's athletic skill applied to photographic actions.
It requires a very highly developed sense of timing.
Zoneheads, who I believe typically start photography later in life
(after they have the income to buy a LF system) and usually have never
photographed sporting events and experienced the demands that such
photography places on the nervous system, have not developed those
sorts of skills, and what's more, often do not recognize or value
them. I'm not saying a Zonehead can't be a sports photographer, but
simply that it's extremely unlikely that he'd ever be both, and even
if so, not likely to be equally good at both. The brain can only be
wired one way or another in the acquisition of skills, especially if
one is beginning after childhood.
So what I'm saying is that once you've started along the path to
people/street/sports photography at a young age, it's likely your
brain and nervous system will develop certain skills and not develop
others. When I see some people's attemps at reportage photography,
especially the kind that involves precise timing and the ability to
compose on the spot, perhaps also requiring a bit of agressiveness
even to get the photo to begin with, I see they fail miserably. These
people are usually poor athletes too. These sorts of people should not
bother further with this sort of photography, for which they
apparently have no 'knack'. I have seen several people post their
pictures here who fall into this category. One was someone who
attended a rock concert (Rolling Stones?). There was notably little
attention paid to composition or any attempt to single out anything as
a subject. This kind of photography demands decisiveness, boldness,
and quickness. It's a 'take no prisoners' approach.
On the other hand, the Zonehead is perhaps more like the long-distance
runner, who has no specific place to go and no specific deadline. In
tennis, you have to hit the ball NOW. You can't wait
until....................................................................now.
The court is so wide, and no wider. The shot must be in or out. There
is no ambiguity. The same is true for reportage photogrraphy. Either
you get the pass catch or you don't. 'Almost' doesn't count.
On the other hand, for the Zonehead:
The scenery will still be there tomorrow, unless a flood or snowstorm
changes the look of the scene drastically. Usually there's no hurry,
and you can fiddle with your view camera all day, and take 2,333 meter
readings if you want. If the sun isn't quite where you want it, you
can wait till later, or come back tomorrow at an earlier time, or in
11 months if that would be better yet.
So, if a Zonehead is approached by a young person with a 35mm camera
who wants to learn B&W photography and asks about the zone system, the
best thing is to ask him decide what kind of photography he wants to
do. If he has already purchased or been given a 35mm camera, he should
be encouraged to get involved with photographing school friends and
activities, and sports. If these show NO real promise, then maybe,
just maybe, you have a potential ZoneClone: someone who will be better
off with a slow, deliberate approach to photography. If, on the other
hand, the kid shows real promise with the 35mm, he should be taken
under the wing of a photo-journalist. That's what happened to me.
Michael Scarpitti
The terminology may be insufficient to describe what goes on. The
thinking is perhaps so fast that it is not 'noticed' as such.
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > Jörgen Persson <jpn-...@tlth.lth.se> wrote in message news:<bi1v4o$49q31$1...@ID-56810.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> >> He described a technical method (and it doesn't suit me)
> >> but /why/ did he do it? That is what matters. What was his
> >> purpose? He did it to be able to visualize the final image
> >> before it was done.
> >
> > That's the problem. I don't previsualize in any formal sense,
> > and never will. It causes 'thinking'. 'Thinking' slows down my
> > creative act.
>
> Being deliberate ought to require 'thinking'. You where
> obviously 'thinking' when you took this image[1]. Maybe it
> isn't representative for your work but what does a bunch of
> unrepresentative pictures say about a photographer?
It is represenative, yes. I didn't say it wasn't. But I have better
stuff that I have to dig out. In other words, representative of my
style, but not my very best work.
Michael Scarpitti
That's probably how I would say my mind works too, when I'm doing B&W
reportage. I just meter a basic setting for the shadow and shoot it
up!
Michael Scarpitti
> news:ESmdnZvmfNx...@speedfactory.net...
> >
> > "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > That's the problem. I don't previsualize in any formal sense, and
> > > never will. It causes 'thinking'. 'Thinking' slows down my creative
> > > act. People using 35mm cameras should not be 'thinking' either. They
> > > should learn to compose on the fly, react to a situation and come up
> > > with a sensitive, artistic rendition, and all in an instant.
> >
> > I disagree wholeheartedly. Many of us use 35-mm cameras to work just as
> > carefully as other people do with sheet-film cameras. Also, I think
> > "thinking" turns into instinct as you get more experience with it -- not
> as
> > you try to avoid it altogether.
> >
> > The Zone System (or rather the related sensitometry) is, of course, also
> the
> > basis of matrix metering and similar auto exposure systems that measure
> the
> > range, not just the average brightness.
> >
> There are reasons and situations that one would choose to use a 35mm camera
> over a LF one. But, when it comes to 'careful' work, probably on a tripod,
> why would one choose 35 over LF?
Why indeed? It makes no sense to me. That's the whole point of my
thread. 35mm and LF users should stay as far awy from each other as
possible. Zoneheads have no business telling anyone how to do 35mm
B&W. It's a different mind set altogether. Likewise, I don't go around
telling people how to do 'fine art' photography with their view
cameras. I just wish they would stop altogether and take their Prozac.
Michael Scarpitti
The irony is his photos are not accurate at all. They're highly
manipulated.
> He had a go at the kind of "fine art" photography where the
> attempt is made to create "Painterly" works.
'Pictorialism' is the name for that. Actually, his work is closer to
pictorialism that modernism, the other major movement of the 20's and
30's in photography.
> Maybe those photographers thought
> they were more likely to be accepted in galleries if their photos didn't look
> like photos. To Adams, I think the beauty of nature was worth preserving as he
> saw it, by the most accurate renditions he could muster.
They're highly manipulated.
Michael Scarpitti
> I suppose someone will have to tell George. He sells both silver and
> platinum/palladium prints of the same scene
> http://www.afterimagegallery.com/ticeprices.htm
Not impressive to me. The stuff looks hokey aesthetically, and
technically lacking in contrast. Over-compressed, esp in mid-tones,
etc. Subjects look to be aware of the camera and he seems unable to
become invisible, an essential attribute for this kind of photography.
The subjects are looking at the camera and obviously not at ease.
The worst of all is the porch. WHY? WHY? WHY? There are no dramatic
shadows, no tension, no diagonals, in short, no drama at all. It's
pure unmitigated dreck....
Take yer Prozac and get out of here man.....
Michael Scarpitti
I looked around at Tice's work. Incredible. Absolutely incredible, I
tell you, that he can sell this dreck to anyone for any price at all.
It's flat, boring, and utterly without interest. Some of the worst
zonehead stuff I've ever seen.
D Poinsett
> thread. 35mm and LF users should stay as far awy from each other as
> possible. Zoneheads have no business telling anyone how to do 35mm
> B&W. It's a different mind set altogether. Likewise, I don't go around
> telling people how to do 'fine art' photography with their view
> cameras. I just wish they would stop altogether and take their Prozac.
>
I took Mr S off the "blocked sender" list only to find this posting and more
like it. For any students or newbies looking to learn: steer clear of this
guy. Hi knows a thing or two but it's so tangled up with sensationalism and
misinformation that it is almost not worth the effort to sort it out. There
are better sources here and elsewhere. You can predict my next move...
Dave
Mark Wolenski
prints in person, as I have, you'd see that the comments don't hold water.
I suppose when your work is represented in the permanent collections of the
Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Art Institute of
Chicago, and the Bibliotheque Nationale ANDyou have a one man show at the
Metropolitan Museum of Art AND you recieve a Guggenheim Fellowships, AND
you're chosen to print the photographs of Frederick H. Evans, Edward Weston,
Francis Brugiere, and Edward Steichen, I'll consider your comments as more
than one man's opinion.
AND he's a Jersey boy. He lives about 15 minutes away from me.
AND he's not a Zonie.
It's not that your opinion is wrong, it's just different.
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com...
Mark Wolenski
Michael A. Covington
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com...
> >
country and
> > set out to record it faithfully and artistically to help those who want
to
> > preserve it.
>
> The irony is his photos are not accurate at all. They're highly
> manipulated.
>
> > He had a go at the kind of "fine art" photography where the
> > attempt is made to create "Painterly" works.
>
> 'Pictorialism' is the name for that. Actually, his work is closer to
> pictorialism that modernism, the other major movement of the 20's and
> 30's in photography.
That is an interesting point. The *look* of his pictures is very different
from earlier pictorialism because of his insistence on technical mastery and
overall sharpness -- rather than getting a "mystical" effect from technical
defects. But you make an interesting point about the *intent*.
Norman Worth
and light weight of 35mm even make sense to the pictorialist or "fine art"
photographer, even though he can't use ZS with them. Other times, other
cameras make more sense for that kind of work.
We all have different aesthetic sensibilities. Mr. Scarpitti does not like
pictorialist and fine art photography - and a lot of it is, indeed, banal.
I do not like much of the current vogue in realistic reportage. Much of it
is designed to shock rather than to report, and much of it is very poorly
done. But there are exceptions that are examples of what photography can
and should do. The poor average quality of photos is not an excuse for not
trying.
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote
Ken Smith
> Jörgen Persson <jpn-...@tlth.lth.se> wrote in message news:<bi4rak$53o86$1...@ID-56810.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > > I would like to see more photography along the lines of HCB,
> Eisenstadt, and others of the same mold. That's my style: blitzkrieg
> composition and instant reaction. My best B&W work was always the
> stuff that took the least time. Always. In some cases, I had to wait
> for the subject to move into the right place to create a shadow that I
> had anticipated before I saw it. That's 'pre-composition', composing a
> shot before it can even happen! I want to see more emphasis on
> spontaneous compositional skills. Almost anybody can do it if you give
> him enough time. How many can do it in 2 seconds?
My two favorite types of photography are large format nature, and
"street". One for the city, one for the country. Zone System thinking
never made it into my process, because I had learned sensitometry
first, and the zone thing seemed unnecessary. Zealots ARE a bore.
Passion in artwork is not a matter of insistent cant, especially over
styles and techniques. Whatever you want to see more of, you do
yourself. There's a million would be Bressons, just as there are a
million "zoneheads".
.
>
> What repulses me is the 'fine-art' rocks and trees zonehead work that
> we have been subjected to for the last 15 years or so. It all looks
> the same. It looks like the zonehead took six weeks to set up the
> shot, metered the highlight and shadow detail with a spot meter,
> developed it to N-infinity, and printed on Oriental Penguin paper #2.
> No spontaneity at all. No human interest. No drama. No tension. No
> excitement. Just damned rocks and trees. I'm sick of it. These people
> have a mental problem. That's my complaint. They're passing off their
> psychotherapy sessions as artwork. These people even all look the
> same. Nice trimmed beard, photo vest, western hat, Gitzo tripod. It's
> like they all came from some 'Twilight Zone' episode. It's a
> peculiarly American phenomenon, too. I don't see so much of this kind
> of dreck coming from Europe.
In the historically inclined artworld, the trend away from the
Adams look was underway in the sixties. The 1970's show " The New
Topographics", presented the work of Robert Adams, Joe Deal, Louis
Baltz, and others. Theirs was a reaction against the concept of
pristine wilderness, in the face of vast urbanization. Amatures
however usually eschew the artworld directions, and many practice in
completely dated manners, often becoming a proponent of the "lost"
heights of the past. Painters of traditional works rant on about how
nobody today knows how to draw. Anyone who falls victim to the means
of artwork, photo or otherwise, makes at best work that pleases
themselves only and
has no relationship to society. And there's not a damn thing wrong
with that, either. Highly iconoclastic work sometimes evolves from the
darkest corners, though it's rare. Either way, most zonehead work
doesn't make it far as artwork because nothing new is brought forth.
Although I do remember a Swiss fellow who had done some amazing long
toned silvery forest scenes with an 11x14. Humans will continue to be
interested as long as exceptional work prevails. To list the amount of
non-peopled subject matter in pictures would be absurd. "Human
interest" is a late comer in art history. Most things were concerned
with symbol and ultimate meanings, as are also provided by seashores.
>
> To me, it looks some sort of withdrawl from the world after the
> sixties and Viet Nam. The 60's and 70's were quite disturbing years
> for many. The photography of the times depicted civil rights marches,
> radicals, war protests, assasinations, wars, political upheavals,
> urban blight, etc. For some people, this may have been overwhelming. I
> think as a result, some of these people have retreated to their
> Montana hide-aways and turned their backs on the world. The 'zone
> system' itself is a kind of security blanket, as it allows, they
> believe, 'control', which some of these people crave in an
> uncontrollable world. Chaos and strife are stressful. Rocks and trees
> with zone system 'control' is the perfect antidote. The results are
> more accurately described as 'Prozac-scapes'. It's no coincidence that
> the word 'control' often pops up so much in zonehead-speak.
The sixties art trends withdrew from romance. The Pop Art of
Warhol, Rauschenberg (sp?) etc. rejected the high minded
abstract-expressionism of the 1950's , with all it's idealisms of
purity, subconscious treasures, intuitive knowing. The POP Artists
embraced culture as is, glitz and consummerism, along with a stauch
anti-spiritual existentialism. This and much more left many people in
the seventies with a desire for a new romanticism, hence the back to
nature trend of health, hiking, and pictorial grandure. And why not?
To many people, it felt more like it was society that had turned its
back on them, and thats found expression since the end of the
renissance. Why not get a good look at nature before its goobled up?
Rocks and Trees, sky and weather, exhaustion and challange. All are
deeply inspiring, renewing, and perfectly viable subjects, albeit
culturally difficult to express in a new way. What isn't? Chaos and
strife do not disappear in the woods. Control of light and weather is
undesirable and impossible anyway. Montana is as much in the world as
Georgetown. Either way, besides journalism, no one is, as far as I
know concerned with what a person has to endure to create.
Ultimately, the content of good work is predicated on the artists
relationship, idea, perception of their subject, and their subsequent
abilities with their medium, i.e. can you convey what you wish to.
The preoccupation some photographers, including myself, have with
tonality for instance, is justified, as the subject demands it. The
expression of the content requires a specific look and feel to the
print, without which the message is lost. So how could it possibly
matter what methods are employed if one successfully acheives the kind
of image one intended?
Michael Scarpitti
> The JPEGs as presented on the web do no justice to the work. If you saw the
> prints in person, as I have, you'd see that the comments don't hold water.
WHAT? That stuff is crap, unmitigated crap.
Take this image, for example:
http://www.afterimagegallery.com/ticenewamishboy.htm
One could write an essay on its defects
1. Flat light, showing no modelling of the face. Much better world be
something that shows highlights and shadows, giving some dimension to
the face.
2. Expression? None. He looks bored to death. Looks more like a statue
than a person. What was he doing? How about him out behind a plow,
showing some sweat?
3. Context? White painted wooden wall. Could be anywhere.
This image is a complete and utter failure.
This one:
http://www.afterimagegallery.com/ticenewbicycle.htm
Kids are way too self-conscious. No focus on any one individual. PICK
A SUBJECT, DAMMIT!
How about this one:
http://www.afterimagegallery.com/ticenewfatherdaughter.htm
Half a horse?
What the hell? This is horrible composition. Better to have been shot
at an angle, perhaps 3/4 facing camera. This is utter crap.
Now here's a real gem:
http://www.afterimagegallery.com/ticenewtreeswings.htm
No shadows. No highlights. Just grey. the foreground blends into the
background because too much depth of field was used. Horrible from
start to finish. A far better shot would be with a low sun creating
some shadows from the swings, and taken more at an angle. This
composition and lighting are as bad as can be. there's a lot of
potential there in the subject mater, but he utterly ruined it.
>
> I suppose when your work is represented in the permanent collections of the
> Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Art Institute of
> Chicago, and the Bibliotheque Nationale ANDyou have a one man show at the
> Metropolitan Museum of Art AND you recieve a Guggenheim Fellowships, AND
> you're chosen to print the photographs of Frederick H. Evans, Edward Weston,
> Francis Brugiere, and Edward Steichen, I'll consider your comments as more
> than one man's opinion.
This stuff is crap. Period!
Michael Scarpitti
I teach photography, and have 34 years of experience in B&W 35mm
photography, and make exquisite quality images. I know exactly how and
why that happens. If don't know how or why, too bad, because I can
tell you, but if you don't want to listen and learn....you'll keep
repeating the same mistakes I see beginners make...over and over and
over and over and over and over....
Gregory W. Blank
alden...@aol.com (Ken Smith) wrote:
> So how could it possibly matter what methods are employed if one successfully acheives the kind
> of image one intended?
It doesn't, there's alot to be said for just taking the "fricking" picture
and knowing how you did it ;-)
--
"ANFAWFOS"
Check out my website @
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
GP
> we have been subjected to for the last 15 years or so.
For a guy so repulsed by ZS, you dedicate way too much time talking about
it!!
Guillermo
Gregory W. Blank
"GP" <g...@gp.com> wrote:
> For a guy so repulsed by ZS, you dedicate way too much time talking about
> it!!
> Guillermo
El gringo es loco, Guillermo "Bill".
Via Con Dios
Gregorio ;-)
Dan Quinn
> The irony is his photos are not accurate at all. They're highly
> manipulated.
I do not think that to be the case at all and certainly not by today's
standards and current methods of manipulation.
I can easily imagine that many of his photographs were prints when he
released the shuter. That is in part due to his mastery of exposure,
development, and his intimate familiarity with which the materials
he worked.
In part it is due to the subject itself. Adams' eye for composition
did justice to the grand nature of the subject. I think of he as a
photojournalist with a good eye who really worked at his interest. Dan
Michael Scarpitti
> In general, you're probably right. But there are times when the convenience
> and light weight of 35mm even make sense to the pictorialist or "fine art"
> photographer, even though he can't use ZS with them. Other times, other
> cameras make more sense for that kind of work.
>
> We all have different aesthetic sensibilities. Mr. Scarpitti does not like
> pictorialist and fine art photography - and a lot of it is, indeed, banal.
Well, actually I do like pictorialist stuff. But by that I mean stuff
from 1890-1030 or so, not recent stuff.
> I do not like much of the current vogue in realistic reportage. Much of it
> is designed to shock rather than to report, and much of it is very poorly
> done.
Again, true. Where are the HCB's of today?
Michael Scarpitti
> > >
> camera
> > over a LF one. But, when it comes to 'careful' work, probably on a tripod,
> question.
> > When I'm shooting 35mm slides for clients of their art objects, I choose
> > 35mm because that's the medium that galleries want to see. But, if it's
> for
> > your own work, why would anyone want to shoot 35mm after experiencing LF
> or
> > MF? I'm not trying to be an elitist by asking this question. Just curious
> > about why some photographers choose 35 for 'careful' work.
>
> book _Creative Elements: Darkroom Techniques for Landscape Photography_ You
> get a different look with 35mm significantly enlarged than you would from a
> large format negative printed to the same size,. a look that can be used for
> artistic effect. The print enlarged from 35mm gives more a an
> impressionistic effect. Or consider the photographer's that like huge
> grain. Clearly they don't think that fine grain and high resolution are
> necessary for an effective photograph.
I don't either. the point though, is that for most purposes, most
people prefer the sharpest and finest-grained image they can get. It's
not perverse to choose sharpness and fine grain: after all, isn't that
what LF format provides most of?
> Or consider Ansel Adams's arch rival,
> William Mortensen. He advocated developing 35mm film to completion., as he
> was much more interested in, to use his words, "maximizing the number of
> half tones in a low contrast subject" than he was in minimizing grain. Or
> consider the people who use some type of soft filter or lens. Again, while
> fine grain and high resolution might usually be very important, there are a
> significant number of a cases where accomplished artists valued other
> photographic aspects more highly. As such, making categorical
> pronouncements about the 'best' techniques for 35mm photography is
> ridiculous.
OK, if you insist, then there's no such thing as 'best' at all, but
most people have reasonable standards, and for them, the methods I
have reported here, and used by many 35mm workers for decades, are
well-respected. They are endorsed by Kodak and many experts.
GP
"Gregory W. Blank" <Who...@hear-who.net> wrote in message news:6ES1b.7901
> "GP" <g...@gp.com> wrote:
> > For a guy so repulsed by ZS, you dedicate way too much time talking
about
> > it!!
> > Guillermo
>
> El gringo es loco, Guillermo "Bill".
Ciao Gregorio!
Italianos no son gringos, lo correcto es: El siciliano es loco.
Capisce?
William
:-)
Mark Wolenski
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com...
> "Mark Wolenski" <ma...@wolenski.com> wrote in message
> > The JPEGs as presented on the web do no justice to the work. If you saw
the
> > prints in person, as I have, you'd see that the comments don't hold
water.
>
>
> WHAT? That stuff is crap, unmitigated crap.
>
> Take this image, for example:
>
> http://www.afterimagegallery.com/ticenewamishboy.htm
>
> One could write an essay on its defects
>
> 1. Flat light, showing no modelling of the face. Much better world be
> something that shows highlights and shadows, giving some dimension to
> the face.
> 2. Expression? None. He looks bored to death. Looks more like a statue
> than a person. What was he doing? How about him out behind a plow,
> showing some sweat?
> 3. Context? White painted wooden wall. Could be anywhere.
>
> This image is a complete and utter failure.
Flat lighting exists in the natural world. Oh, that's right. "Routine
summer-time daylight photos." is the phrase you used. I guess that it's
impossible to photograph in flat light. I guess painters have been wrong for
centuries when they used North Light for studio illumination. I guess that
Weston's portraits of Robinson Jeffers in 1929 were utter failures as well,
if only because of the flat lighting. The same could be said of Joyce
Tenneson's work (http://www.joycetenneson.com)
The view of the face is a classic 3/4 view, kind of like
http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmovies/crawford/crawford51a.jpg, but
without the elongated neck. (Read this again: VIEW, not lighting!)
The context is that of timelessness. "Could be anywhere". Indeed, could be
anywhere at any time. The photograph could have been done in 1965 or 1865.
The context is the Amish people, trying to stay faithful in their ways in a
world where those outside their society speed forward at a dizzying rate.
Sometimes it's necessary to see past the nose on one's face.
>
> This one:
>
> http://www.afterimagegallery.com/ticenewbicycle.htm
>
> Kids are way too self-conscious. No focus on any one individual. PICK
> A SUBJECT, DAMMIT!
>
He HAS picked a subject. Community. Interdependence.
> How about this one:
> http://www.afterimagegallery.com/ticenewfatherdaughter.htm
>
> Half a horse?
> What the hell? This is horrible composition. Better to have been shot
> at an angle, perhaps 3/4 facing camera. This is utter crap.
We know that the entire horse exists, but it's total inclusion in the scene
is redundent. The composition fits snugly into the classic "thirds". I could
add a comment about a horse's ass, but I'll leave that to the readers to
<insert comment here>.
> Now here's a real gem:
> http://www.afterimagegallery.com/ticenewtreeswings.htm
>
> No shadows. No highlights. Just grey. the foreground blends into the
> background because too much depth of field was used. Horrible from
> start to finish. A far better shot would be with a low sun creating
> some shadows from the swings, and taken more at an angle. This
> composition and lighting are as bad as can be. there's a lot of
> potential there in the subject mater, but he utterly ruined it.
Repeat: "The JPEGs as presented on the web do no justice to the work."
Footnote: I guess that the Ohio Amish are different from the Pennsylvania
Amish, just as Harrison Ford portrayed in the movie "Witness".
dr bob
"Dan Quinn" <dan.c...@att.net> wrote in message
news:b379902d.0308...@posting.google.com...
No, Dan, not really. AA by his own admission did _most_ of his "fine
prints" in the darkroom, manipulating the He-out of some. His "Moonrise at
Hernandez" being one classic example. According to the man himself, that
image was extremely hard to "manipulate" into the print he visualized at the
time and that he was very lucky to have been in the proper place at the
proper time. "Aspens" is another example.
Truly, dr bob.
Michael Scarpitti
> "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com...
> > "Mark Wolenski" <ma...@wolenski.com> wrote in message
> news:<l9-cnb_J_NG...@comcast.com>...
> > > The JPEGs as presented on the web do no justice to the work. If you saw
> the
> > > prints in person, as I have, you'd see that the comments don't hold
> water.
> >
> >
> > WHAT? That stuff is crap, unmitigated crap.
> >
> > Take this image, for example:
> >
> > http://www.afterimagegallery.com/ticenewamishboy.htm
> >
> > One could write an essay on its defects
> >
> > 1. Flat light, showing no modelling of the face. Much better world be
> > something that shows highlights and shadows, giving some dimension to
> > the face.
> > 2. Expression? None. He looks bored to death. Looks more like a statue
> > than a person. What was he doing? How about him out behind a plow,
> > showing some sweat?
> > 3. Context? White painted wooden wall. Could be anywhere.
> >
> > This image is a complete and utter failure.
>
> Flat lighting exists in the natural world. Oh, that's right. "Routine
> summer-time daylight photos." is the phrase you used. I guess that it's
> impossible to photograph in flat light. I guess painters have been wrong for
> centuries when they used North Light for studio illumination.
You're confusing several different things.
This is B&W photography. The paintings you correctly describe used
color and subtle shadings of tone. And even though the light was
'flat', it was still directional. 'North Light' still has some
direction and modelling effects. See, for instance:
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/g/greco_el/1575/06healin.html
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/g/greco_el/1576-80/05magdal.html
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/m/michelan/3sistina/1genesis/6adam/06_3ce6.html
ALL of these use shadows and directional light.
In the photograph under consideration, there is NO directionality the
light AT ALL. That's really not good in B&W, because there is no depth
cue for the eye to use to see the roundness of the shape. It's a
complete failure as far as lighting is concerned. Grade "F".
2. Is it a portrait? A character study? Just what kind of picture is
it supposed to be? If it's a pictorial effort, how about putting the
lad in a field, with a big fluffy cloud behind him, and let's have him
looking up from his plow with a bit of glistening sweat on his
forehead. THAT woul;d be worth looking at, but certainly not this.
>I guess that
> Weston's portraits of Robinson Jeffers in 1929 were utter failures as well,
> if only because of the flat lighting. The same could be said of Joyce
> Tenneson's work (http://www.joycetenneson.com)
I looked at this stuff, and it's still got some directionality to it.
Tice's boy has none whatsoever.
> The view of the face is a classic 3/4 view, kind of like
> http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmovies/crawford/crawford51a.jpg, but
> without the elongated neck. (Read this again: VIEW, not lighting!)
There is no connection to the subject as a human being. He might as
well be a piece of farm machinery, or a rock or tree. His eyes are not
directed, and show no sign of life. He looks bored to tears. There is
nothing interesting about his expression.
> The context is that of timelessness. "Could be anywhere". Indeed, could be
> anywhere at any time. The photograph could have been done in 1965 or 1865.
> The context is the Amish people, trying to stay faithful in their ways in a
> world where those outside their society speed forward at a dizzying rate.
> Sometimes it's necessary to see past the nose on one's face.
Oh, and I forgot: How about a vertical crop?
>
> >
> > This one:
> >
> > http://www.afterimagegallery.com/ticenewbicycle.htm
> >
> > Kids are way too self-conscious. No focus on any one individual. PICK
> > A SUBJECT, DAMMIT!
> >
>
> He HAS picked a subject. Community. Interdependence.
Wha? Not a good 'people' picture at all. I've thrown away better stuff
than this.
>
> > How about this one:
> > http://www.afterimagegallery.com/ticenewfatherdaughter.htm
> >
> > Half a horse?
> > What the hell? This is horrible composition. Better to have been shot
> > at an angle, perhaps 3/4 facing camera. This is utter crap.
>
> We know that the entire horse exists, but it's total inclusion in the scene
> is redundent.
Not at all. It's EXTREMELY disturbing to see half a horse, or half of
anything important to a composition. He should have either included
ALL of the horse, or NONE of it. This is EXTREMELY poor composition,
BELOW BEGINNER LEVEL. If I were grading this effort, it would get an
"F". At the very least, a 3/4 view would have made the picture
tolerable.
>The composition fits snugly into the classic "thirds". I could
> add a comment about a horse's ass, but I'll leave that to the readers to
> <insert comment here>.
>
> > Now here's a real gem:
> > http://www.afterimagegallery.com/ticenewtreeswings.htm
> >
> > No shadows. No highlights. Just grey. the foreground blends into the
> > background because too much depth of field was used. Horrible from
> > start to finish. A far better shot would be with a low sun creating
> > some shadows from the swings, and taken more at an angle. This
> > composition and lighting are as bad as can be. there's a lot of
> > potential there in the subject mater, but he utterly ruined it.
>
> Repeat: "The JPEGs as presented on the web do no justice to the work."
That has nothing to do with it. There's no SEPARATION between
foreground and background, which could be accomplished by:
1. Selective focus
2. Lighting (going back or waiting until the swings were in the direct
sunshine, and the house in shade, or the reverse. Here, there's no
EMPHASIS. Our attention is directed neither to the swings nor to the
house, by any device that is commonly used in photography, and it is
precisely that lack of emphasis that makes this photo a complete
failure as well. Add to that the head-on camera angle, and you have a
total snoozer. Grade "E".
> Footnote: I guess that the Ohio Amish are different from the Pennsylvania
> Amish, just as Harrison Ford portrayed in the movie "Witness".
I don't understand this comment. Please explain.
Dan Quinn
"Dan Quinn" <dan.c...@att.net> wrote
"mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote
In a slightly different context he did ALL his "fine prints" in
the darkroom.
Mr. M. Scarpitti has stated that NONE of his prints are of any
fidelity; "not accurate at all". Moonrise was a lucky shot. Had it
not been for Adams' ingrained photojournalist's approach, mentality
if you will, he'd have driven by giving the scene only a passing
glance.
I think he was a photojournalist become lab technician out of an
impulsive need to move on to the next grand landscape. That would
be very consitant with being of a photojournalit's mind.
I doubt that we will ever find anything in any of his prints which
was not in that print's negative. Dan
Some Dude
awesome and focused group I have no idea.
But- to the killfile for him..
(interesting info, though)- although wondering if it wasn't just
copied off of a Google search. Also it appears some of this is open
for discussion....
On 20 Aug 2003 19:08:21 -0700, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:
>The Zone System presupposes and was created by Adams in an environment
>(the
>early 1930's) and under several conditions that no longer exist:
>
>1. Papers with a single grade of contrast
>2. Emulsions coated with more than one layer
>3. Large Format negatives
>4. and a low degree of enlargement, or no enlargement at all (i.e.,
>contact printing)
>
>The procedure was designed to 'fit the negative to the paper' because
>that was the only way to do it. Many papers were not available in
>different grades, or in only a very limited range of contrast at best.
>Remember at that time platinum printing (which allows contact printing
>only) was still quite popular, and this required a very vigorous,
>contrasty negative. Enlarging papers were rare, as most serious work
>was by contact pinting.
>
>To 'fit the negative to the paper', the time of negative development
>was changed up or down (from a 'norm' called 'N') until the negative's
>range of tones filled the range of tones of the paper from black to
>white, numbered in Roman numerals (!) from I through X.
>
>All of this, of course, predated wide-spread use of 35mm cameras in
>the US.
>
>At around the same time that AA was developing his Zone System, the
>Leica had appeared in Germany (1925) and became an immediate
>sensation. The motto of its inventor, Oskar Barnak, was 'small
>negative-big picture'.
>
>From the outset, though, the little Leica negatives presented quality
>problems that limited the size of the 'big picture' if quality
>standards were very strict at all. The film sources initially were
>cast-off from reels of
>motion picture film. If you've ever seen an old movie from that
>period, you know that films were not of the quality that they are now.
>Films were slow and grainy compared to what we have today.
>Panchromatic films
>were not introduced until the early 1930's (1933?) and only ortho
>films were available before that. Early efforts by users of miniature
>cameras in the 1930's (at least in the US) consisted of efforts to
>minimise graininess. It immediately became apparent that the small
>film had to be developed much less than the large format films to have
>even barely acceptable fineness of grain. Elaborate developers were
>concocted
>with numerous ingredients of questionable value, and exposures had to
>be increased significantly over 'normal'. In 1927, though, Kodak had
>introduced D-76 for motion-picture film, and it was the first
>developer to combine full
>exploitation of film speed and sharpness together with fine grain,
>which was accomplished by using sodium sulphite in larger
>concentrations than is necessary simply to preserve the developing
>agents, which was the only role for SS before D-76. Such a developer
>is called 'excess sulphite'.
>
>In Germany, however, Windisch and Beutler had other ideas. They came
>up with acutance and surface-acting developers that did not strive for
>fine grain, but rather emphasized sharpness above all else. Soon,
>miniature photographers in Europe adopted these formulae with
>considerable success. Later, in the 1950's, Dr. Schneider would design
>thin-emulsion films, manufactured by the Adox company, as he
>understood that the lack of sharpness that Windisch and Beutler were
>trying to solve was caused by the thick double or triple-coated
>emulsions
>common at that time. These thick emulsions allowed light to scatter,
>and the fine-grain developers in use in the US (Champlain, etc) did
>nothing to address that. Schneider realised that the film would have
>to be thinner if sharper images were to be obtained. Thus the KB14,
>KB17, and KB21 films were born.
>
>Back in the US, however, aside from a few photographers who worked
>with Leicas and Contaxes for Life Magazine, which premiered in 1936,
>'serious' photography was in the hands of view camera users, and press
>photography in the hands of Graflex users. Both groups sneered at the
>miserable little postage-stamp negative and grainy prints that
>miniature photographers produced.
>
>When Leica introduced the M2/M3 cameras in the mid-1950's, followed by
>Nikon's
>introduction of the F camera in 1960, miniature users finally had the
>tools they needed to produce work that could be taken seriously. New
>films from Kodak (Tri-X and Plus-X) had been introduced in the
>mid-fifties as well. Kodachrome had been perfected introduced 1936)
>and was widely available. Many other manufacturers had entered the B&W
>market for miniature film, and variable-contrast paper was available
>from Dupont under the trade-name Varigam.
>
>By the end of the 50's, Geoffrey Crawley in England had begun to
>investigate the possibility of improving the relationship among speed,
>sharpness, and graininess, as it was his belief that D76 was not the
>best developer theoretically possible, as the increased demand for
>speed and fine grain made by the news and documentary photographers
>using 35mm equipment began to be felt. The results of his research
>were a series of developers manufactured by Paterson, pre-eminent
>among them Acutol, which, combined with medium or slow-speed films,
>finally gave the miniature worker something that approached the
>potential that his lenses offered.
>
>The formulas of Windisch and Beutler, though they enhanced sharpness,
>did also have the unfavourable effect of increasing graininess and
>compressing mid-range gradation excessively. Crawley understood that
>moderate compression--which affects primarily the highlight areas and
>leaves the mid-tones largely unaffected--was desirable. Acutol
>achieves this goal.
>
>With Acutol, miniature workers could finally enjoy reasonably fine
>grain and high sharpness together with good tonality. Since
>long rolls of film made individual development of negatives
>impractical, the benefits of developers such as Acutol, called
>semi-compensating, were immediately evident. Other developers such as
>D76 were discovered to have similar characteristics when diluted 1:1
>or 1:3. The use of diluted developers became the norm among advanced
>miniature workers during the 1960's. It was found that a high degree
>of uniformity of negative contrast was obtained due to the
>compensating effects. Both brilliant and less brilliant scenes were
>recorded within a narrow range of negative densities, and thus the
>small changes necessary in print contrast to adjust from one negative
>to the next were easily handled by variable contrast papers, which now
>include entries
>from Kodak (Polycontrast and Polycontrast Rapid).
>
>Meanwhile, Ansel Adams and his devotees (calling themselves 'fine-art
>photographers' continued on their merry way with expansions and
>contractions on sheet film. By the late 1960's, he had become quite
>famous. Some workers new to photography at that time took up 35mm
>cameras and attempted to copy the Adams style and techniques. What
>they did not understand, though, was that large changes of development
>times applied to 35mm film are not desirable. The emulsions that Kodak
>had introduced in the 1950's (Tri-x and Plus-X) were radically
>different in construction and performance from the ones Adams had used
>in the 1930's. They were designed not to change as much in contrast
>when developed at different times, as they were intended for the
>hobbyist and newsman, whose technique might generously be called
>'casual'.
>
>As a result, these films did not behave according to ZS principles,
>which were founded on the old 1930's films. Longer developing times,
>when applied to 35mm films, proved disasterous: they contributed more
>to excessive graininess and loss of sharpness than to anything else.
>The small negative cannot really tolerate the massive swings in
>developing times called for in ZS theory. Other, far better means for
>securing control of print contrast exist, with even better variable
>contrast papers available today than in the 1960's, papers that Adams
>could only dream about when he formulated the ZS.
>
>Around the same time, the Zone System entered the academic realm, and
>became a staple of university photography department courses.
>Institutionalized in this way, the whole Adams approach was dragged
>along with it. 'Previsualization' became a code word, and entered the
>vocabulary of the new 'fine art photography' phenomenon. No
>self-respecting 'serious' photographer could afford not to be a
>Zonehead.
>
>These two groups--the miniaturists and the Zoneheads--seldom came into
>contact with each other, which perhaps accounts for the fact that each
>group knew little of the other's practices. Zoneheads continue to this
>day to attempt to treat 35mm as nothing but a little view camera, and
>attempt to apply ZS dogma, however inappropriate that may be. Most
>miniaturists perhaps have little contact with the view camera, and
>even less knowledge of how to use one.
>
>Almost anyone contemplating 'serious' photography, no matter whether
>35mm, roll, or view camera, was immediately buttonholed, and
>indoctrinated into the Zone System, its language and mysteries,
>without regard to the intended type of photography or format to be
>used.
>
>Those who were not aware of the quite distinct and unique history of
>35mm B&W practise, especially European practise, were easily swept
>down into the Zone System maelstrom. To question it was tantamount to
>heresy. Shame, derision, and scorn were heaped upon any that dared
>question the gods Ansel Adams or Minor White.
>
>How do I know this? It has happened to me.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>So, you want to do 35mm B&W:
>
>You may have made this argument to yourself:
>
>1. I'm interested in obtaining the best quality in my B&W work.
>2. The Zone System is supposed to give terrific quality in B&W
>photography. I've seen those really incredible images by Ansel Adams,
>so I guess that's the way to go.
>3. I have a 35mm camera.
>4. I should apply the Zone System to my work to make it look good.
>5. It's not possible to develop individual negatives in 35mm
>6. How do I handle that?
>
>The problem is that those incredible B&W images were NOT made with a
>35mm camera, nor with films like today's.
>
>The questions should be the following:
>
>1. I have a 35mm camera.
>2. I'm interested in obtaining the best quality in my B&W work.
>3. What should I do?
>
>The answers are as follows:
>
>1. Try a variety of films, based on your area of interest. I suggest
>you start with Ilford FP4 for routine summer-time daylight photos and
>Kodak Tri-X for fast action work. You may need to a trifle more
>exposure (1/3-1/2 stop) than the ISO rating suggests.
>2. Get a condenser enlarger with the best lens you can afford.
>3. D-76 1:1 is a good developer for starters.
>4. Develop your film about 20% less than the Kodak standard times,
>because those times are for diffusion enlargers. By doing this, you'll
>get sharper, finer-grained negatives. The use of a condenser enlarger
>will make up for the lower contrast that the shorter developing time
>will give you.
>4. Your negatives should typically print on grade 3 filters or on
>graded paper #3.
>
>Because the developer is diluted, it exhausts itself quicker in areas
>of heavy density. This has the same effect in the highlights as a Zone
>System contraction, but unlike a 'minus' development, it affects only
>the highlights, not the whole negative. This is good, because
>mid-tones don't suffer loss of contrast as they do on 'minus'
>development.
>
>The reverse effect occurs in the shadows. The shadows gain strength
>and contrast in relation to undiluted development, and the effect is
>like a Zone System expansion, but this affects only the shadow areas.
>
>So, you end up with a negative that is easier to print, and all your
>negatives will tend to fall within the same range of density, making
>your life much easier for printing.
>
>mmmkay?
Cheers,
-sd
http://www.zoom.sh
John
>How this guy managed to create such a flame war on such a typically
>awesome and focused group I have no idea.
>
>But- to the killfile for him..
Yes dude, killfiles can be a good thing.
Regards,
John - Photographer & Webmaster - http://www.darkroompro.com
Michael Scarpitti
What I mean is that all of the images are highly manipulated either in
the negative or the printing or both.
Mark Wolenski
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com...
> "Mark Wolenski" <ma...@wolenski.com> wrote in message
news:<hZucnczHCqh...@comcast.com>...
> > "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Mark Wolenski" <ma...@wolenski.com> wrote in message
> > news:<l9-cnb_J_NG...@comcast.com>...
>
>
> This is B&W photography. The paintings you correctly describe
I didn't "describe" _paintings_. I was referring to "flat lighting exists
in the natural world". You seem to be confused about the context.
> used
> color and subtle shadings of tone. And even though the light was
> 'flat', it was still directional. 'North Light' still has some
> direction and modelling effects. See, for instance:
>
> http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/g/greco_el/1575/06healin.html
> http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/g/greco_el/1576-80/05magdal.html
>
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/m/michelan/3sistina/1genesis/6adam/06_3ce6.html
>
> ALL of these use shadows and directional light.
>
> In the photograph under consideration, there is NO directionality the
> light AT ALL. That's really not good in B&W, because there is no depth
> cue for the eye to use to see the roundness of the shape. It's a
> complete failure as far as lighting is concerned. Grade "F".
>
> 2. Is it a portrait? A character study? Just what kind of picture is
> it supposed to be? If it's a pictorial effort, how about putting the
> lad in a field, with a big fluffy cloud behind him, and let's have him
> looking up from his plow with a bit of glistening sweat on his
> forehead. THAT woul;d be worth looking at, but certainly not this.
>
What camera/lens combination would you recommend to capture the boy, plow,
cloud and (obvious) sweat? Perhaps a wide-angle-telephoto? When I was a
working professional, many an Art Director's description of what they wanted
would be so easy to accomplish with such a lens. ("I want to see the office,
the desk, the guy behind the desk, and make sure that we can see that the
letter he's signing is addressed to the CFO." or "We see the couple through
the window of the restaraunt smiling at each other across the table
illuminated by candles. She's having lasagna and he's having linguini with
white clam sauce" Both of these are true ocurrances, by the way.)
> >I guess that
> > Weston's portraits of Robinson Jeffers in 1929 were utter failures as
well,
> > if only because of the flat lighting. The same could be said of Joyce
> > Tenneson's work (http://www.joycetenneson.com)
>
> I looked at this stuff, and it's still got some directionality to it.
> Tice's boy has none whatsoever.
>
>
I think that you'd better take a much closer look at the Weston reference.
>
> > The view of the face is a classic 3/4 view, kind of like
> > http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmovies/crawford/crawford51a.jpg, but
> > without the elongated neck. (Read this again: VIEW, not lighting!)
>
> There is no connection to the subject as a human being. He might as
> well be a piece of farm machinery, or a rock or tree. His eyes are not
> directed,
Nor were the subjects eyes in the Crawford reference...
> and show no sign of life. He looks bored to tears. There is
> nothing interesting about his expression.
>
> > > Kids are way too self-conscious. No focus on any one individual. PICK
> > > A SUBJECT, DAMMIT!
> > >
> >
> > He HAS picked a subject. Community. Interdependence.
>
> Wha? Not a good 'people' picture at all. I've thrown away better stuff
> than this.
>
How would YOU photographically describe community and interdependence? As a
'grip and grin" where everyone is shaking hands and idiotically staring at
the camera?
As for the comment about the kids being way too self-concious, I disagree.
They seem to be bright-eyed, laughing and smiling...
> >
> > > How about this one:
> > > http://www.afterimagegallery.com/ticenewfatherdaughter.htm
> > >
> > > Half a horse?
> > > What the hell? This is horrible composition. Better to have been shot
> > > at an angle, perhaps 3/4 facing camera. This is utter crap.
> >
> > We know that the entire horse exists, but it's total inclusion in the
scene
> > is redundent.
>
> Not at all. It's EXTREMELY disturbing to see half a horse, or half of
> anything important to a composition.
_I_ was not disturbed to see only half a horse. I've shown this photo to
quite a variety of people (including non-photographers) and _they_ were not
disturbed to see only half a horse. Am I to believe that because it disturbs
you, your opinion should override my opinion?
> He should have either included
> ALL of the horse, or NONE of it. This is EXTREMELY poor composition,
> BELOW BEGINNER LEVEL. If I were grading this effort, it would get an
> "F". At the very least, a 3/4 view would have made the picture
> tolerable.
May I grade your work?
> >The composition fits snugly into the classic "thirds". I could
> > add a comment about a horse's ass, but I'll leave that to the readers to
> > <insert comment here>.
> >
> > > Now here's a real gem:
> > > http://www.afterimagegallery.com/ticenewtreeswings.htm
> > >
> > > No shadows. No highlights. Just grey. the foreground blends into the
> > > background because too much depth of field was used. Horrible from
> > > start to finish. A far better shot would be with a low sun creating
> > > some shadows from the swings, and taken more at an angle. This
> > > composition and lighting are as bad as can be. there's a lot of
> > > potential there in the subject mater, but he utterly ruined it.
> >
> > Repeat: "The JPEGs as presented on the web do no justice to the work."
>
> That has nothing to do with it. There's no SEPARATION between
> foreground and background, which could be accomplished by:
>
> 1. Selective focus
> 2. Lighting (going back or waiting until the swings were in the direct
> sunshine, and the house in shade, or the reverse. Here, there's no
> EMPHASIS. Our attention is directed neither to the swings nor to the
> house, by any device that is commonly used in photography,
Hmm. It seems that he broke "the rules". I remember hearing about "breaking
rules"somewhere recently. Now where was that...?
> and it is
> precisely that lack of emphasis that makes this photo a complete
> failure as well. Add to that the head-on camera angle, and you have a
> total snoozer. Grade "E".
>
> > Footnote: I guess that the Ohio Amish are different from the
Pennsylvania
> > Amish, just as Harrison Ford portrayed in the movie "Witness".
>
> I don't understand this comment. Please explain.
I'd suggest renting it at your leasure. It also shows up on both cable and
broadcast (edited) TV as well.
The scene is where Ford's character is somewhat established in the Amish
community. He and his "sponsor" family go into town where they are
confronted by some rather obnoxious tourists. Ford's character goes about
pummeling the tourists. His non-peaceful actions (actions not usually
associated with the Amish) are explained away to passersby by a "sponsor":
He's an Ohio Amish.
Gregory W. Blank
John <jo...@darkroompro.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 19:08:37 -0400, Some Dude <so...@dude.net> wrote:
> >But- to the killfile for him..
>
> Yes dude, killfiles can be a good thing.
Has been there for almost three weeks now.
Cannot state that I have missed much.
John
wrote:
>> Yes dude, killfiles can be a good thing.
>
>Has been there for almost three weeks now.
>Cannot state that I have missed much.
Same ol' same ol'. Just another flamethrower. I think he'd be a good talk
show host. A replacement for Morton Downey Jr. ?
ArtKramr
>From: mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti)
>What I mean is that all of the images are highly manipulated either in
>the negative or the printing or both.
>
Not true. Many of his images are straight prints.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Michael Scarpitti
> > This is B&W photography. The paintings you correctly describe
>
> I didn't "describe" _paintings_. I was referring to "flat lighting exists
> in the natural world". You seem to be confused about the context.
Hardly. YOU brought up painting, not I. This is supposed to be 'art',
right? That is the claim made by the 'artist', right? The 'artistic'
use of light is a given in good B&W photography. I see none of that in
this image. B&W photography depends crucially on DIRECTIONAL LIGHT and
SHADOW (even in portaiture)to give us some impression of the
three-dimesionality of objects presented in two-dimensional space.
(Color photography is not as dependent on this.) Any portait
photographer worth his salt would laugh at this image, as do I.
>
> > used
> > color and subtle shadings of tone. And even though the light was
> > 'flat', it was still directional. 'North Light' still has some
> > direction and modelling effects. See, for instance:
> >
> > http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/g/greco_el/1575/06healin.html
> > http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/g/greco_el/1576-80/05magdal.html
> >
> http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/m/michelan/3sistina/1genesis/6adam/06_3ce6.html
> >
> > ALL of these use shadows and directional light.
> >
> > In the photograph under consideration, there is NO directionality the
> > light AT ALL. That's really not good in B&W, because there is no depth
> > cue for the eye to use to see the roundness of the shape. It's a
> > complete failure as far as lighting is concerned. Grade "F".
> >
> > 2. Is it a portrait? A character study? Just what kind of picture is
> > it supposed to be? If it's a pictorial effort, how about putting the
> > lad in a field, with a big fluffy cloud behind him, and let's have him
> > looking up from his plow with a bit of glistening sweat on his
> > forehead. THAT woul;d be worth looking at, but certainly not this.
> >
>
> What camera/lens combination would you recommend to capture the boy, plow,
> cloud and (obvious) sweat?
The top of the plow is all you need. A waist-up shot is all that's
needed, perhaps a little closer if you don't want too much of the
plow, and want to show only the harness over his shoulders. I've seen
many such pictures, and they're successful.
>Perhaps a wide-angle-telephoto? When I was a
> working professional, many an Art Director's description of what they wanted
> would be so easy to accomplish with such a lens. ("I want to see the office,
> the desk, the guy behind the desk, and make sure that we can see that the
> letter he's signing is addressed to the CFO." or "We see the couple through
> the window of the restaraunt smiling at each other across the table
> illuminated by candles. She's having lasagna and he's having linguini with
> white clam sauce" Both of these are true ocurrances, by the way.)
I answered this above.
>
> > >I guess that
> > > Weston's portraits of Robinson Jeffers in 1929 were utter failures as
> well,
> > > if only because of the flat lighting. The same could be said of Joyce
> > > Tenneson's work (http://www.joycetenneson.com)
> >
> > I looked at this stuff, and it's still got some directionality to it.
> > Tice's boy has none whatsoever.
> >
> >
>
> I think that you'd better take a much closer look at the Weston reference.
OK, where's a link to it?
>
> >
> > > The view of the face is a classic 3/4 view, kind of like
> > > http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmovies/crawford/crawford51a.jpg, but
> > > without the elongated neck. (Read this again: VIEW, not lighting!)
> >
> > There is no connection to the subject as a human being. He might as
> > well be a piece of farm machinery, or a rock or tree. His eyes are not
> > directed,
>
> Nor were the subjects eyes in the Crawford reference...
...perhaps, but that's not all that's wrong with THIS image...
>
> > and show no sign of life. He looks bored to tears. There is
> > nothing interesting about his expression.
...no signs of life, I repeat...
> >
>
>
> > > > Kids are way too self-conscious. No focus on any one individual. PICK
> > > > A SUBJECT, DAMMIT!
> > > >
> > >
> > > He HAS picked a subject. Community. Interdependence.
> >
> > Wha? Not a good 'people' picture at all. I've thrown away better stuff
> > than this.
> >
>
> How would YOU photographically describe community and interdependence? As a
> 'grip and grin" where everyone is shaking hands and idiotically staring at
> the camera?
No, but not like this. This guy has no clue about how to handle people
or do pictures of people...
>
> As for the comment about the kids being way too self-concious, I disagree.
> They seem to be bright-eyed, laughing and smiling...
I can and have done better
>
> > >
> > > > How about this one:
> > > > http://www.afterimagegallery.com/ticenewfatherdaughter.htm
> > > >
> > > > Half a horse?
> > > > What the hell? This is horrible composition. Better to have been shot
> > > > at an angle, perhaps 3/4 facing camera. This is utter crap.
> > >
> > > We know that the entire horse exists, but it's total inclusion in the
> scene
> > > is redundent.
> >
> > Not at all. It's EXTREMELY disturbing to see half a horse, or half of
> > anything important to a composition.
>
> _I_ was not disturbed to see only half a horse.
What can I say? It's very poor composition whenever you cut off 'half'
of anything that's a key part of an image. It's better to leave only
less than a third of it, if possible. There's not reason to cut off
any part of the horse at all. VERY POOR composition.
>I've shown this photo to
> quite a variety of people (including non-photographers) and _they_ were not
> disturbed to see only half a horse. Am I to believe that because it disturbs
> you, your opinion should override my opinion?
I have good reasons for my judgement, not just 'mere' opinion.
>
> > He should have either included
> > ALL of the horse, or NONE of it. This is EXTREMELY poor composition,
> > BELOW BEGINNER LEVEL. If I were grading this effort, it would get an
> > "F". At the very least, a 3/4 view would have made the picture
> > tolerable.
>
> May I grade your work?
Please feel free. I'm not afraid. I excell at composition, though like
anyone, I make misjudgements. I don't show those to people and
embarass myself. This horse and buggy picture is below amateur grade.
>
> > >The composition fits snugly into the classic "thirds". I could
> > > add a comment about a horse's ass, but I'll leave that to the readers to
> > > <insert comment here>.
> > >
> > > > Now here's a real gem:
> > > > http://www.afterimagegallery.com/ticenewtreeswings.htm
> > > >
> > > > No shadows. No highlights. Just grey. the foreground blends into the
> > > > background because too much depth of field was used. Horrible from
> > > > start to finish. A far better shot would be with a low sun creating
> > > > some shadows from the swings, and taken more at an angle. This
> > > > composition and lighting are as bad as can be. there's a lot of
> > > > potential there in the subject mater, but he utterly ruined it.
> > >
> > > Repeat: "The JPEGs as presented on the web do no justice to the work."
> >
> > That has nothing to do with it. There's no SEPARATION between
> > foreground and background, which could be accomplished by:
> >
> > 1. Selective focus
> > 2. Lighting (going back or waiting until the swings were in the direct
> > sunshine, and the house in shade, or the reverse. Here, there's no
> > EMPHASIS. Our attention is directed neither to the swings nor to the
> > house, by any device that is commonly used in photography,
>
> Hmm. It seems that he broke "the rules". I remember hearing about "breaking
> rules"somewhere recently. Now where was that...?
Of course the 'rules' can be broken successfully (I do it often
myself, but I know what I'm doing when I do it). But the 'rules' exist
for a reason. The image is visually confusing: much better to have NOT
show at a right angle to the house (boring angle); MUCH BETTER to have
placed the swings in focus and softened the house to give the image
some DEPTH; MUCH BETTER to have the swings in direct light with
perhaps some shadows coming from them. ANYTHINg would have been better
than this monstrosity. It's horrible, from start to finish.
>
> > and it is
> > precisely that lack of emphasis that makes this photo a complete
> > failure as well. Add to that the head-on camera angle, and you have a
> > total snoozer. Grade "E".
> >
> > > Footnote: I guess that the Ohio Amish are different from the
> Pennsylvania
> > > Amish, just as Harrison Ford portrayed in the movie "Witness".
> >
> > I don't understand this comment. Please explain.
>
> I'd suggest renting it at your leasure. It also shows up on both cable and
> broadcast (edited) TV as well.
> The scene is where Ford's character is somewhat established in the Amish
> community. He and his "sponsor" family go into town where they are
> confronted by some rather obnoxious tourists. Ford's character goes about
> pummeling the tourists. His non-peaceful actions (actions not usually
> associated with the Amish) are explained away to passersby by a "sponsor":
> He's an Ohio Amish.
I saw the movie, in fact I've seen it more than once, but I did not
remember the 'Ohio' comment until just now.
Michael Scarpitti
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 19:08:37 -0400, Some Dude <so...@dude.net> wrote:
>
> >How this guy managed to create such a flame war on such a typically
> >awesome and focused group I have no idea.
> >
> >But- to the killfile for him..
>
> Yes dude, killfiles can be a good thing.
For keeping out what you don't want to hear, whether true or not.
Michael Scarpitti
The ZS itself is manipulative. Extreme contractions or expansions do
not resemble reality.
Mark Wolenski
reference.
>
> OK, where's a link to it?
>
At this time, I cannot find a viable URL to the image that compares with the
version I have in front of me in printed (halftone) form. Most pages
reference http://www.photocollect.com/thumnail/jeffers3.jpg. My reference is
from:
"Edward Weston: The Flame of Recognition", edited by Nancy Newhall, printed
by Apeture, Copyright 1971, ISBN 0-912334-03-7, LOC 652407, page 31. Another
reference may be
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0893816051/ref%3Dnosim/ricksphotogra
pag/002-1384521-4832053>, but not having a copy of the book, I cannot vouch
for its rendition compared to my own.
> > > > The view of the face is a classic 3/4 view, kind of like
> > > > http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmovies/crawford/crawford51a.jpg,
but
> > > > without the elongated neck. (Read this again: VIEW, not lighting!)
> > >
> > > There is no connection to the subject as a human being. He might as
> > > well be a piece of farm machinery, or a rock or tree. His eyes are not
> > > directed,
> >
> > Nor were the subjects eyes in the Crawford reference...
>
> ...perhaps,
Can I consider the "perhaps" as a concession on that particular point?
> > > > Repeat: "The JPEGs as presented on the web do no justice to the
work."
> > >
> > > That has nothing to do with it.
Make an experiment of it:
Select a few photos from your library of photographers' books. Search the
web for those particular photos. (Google worked well enough, entering the
photographer's name within quotes followed by a space and the name of the
photograph, also in quotes)
As an example of the poor quality of images available on the web, see:
http://www.susanspiritusgallery.com/artists/images/gtice/gt6.htm
and
http://www.peterfetterman.com/artists/tice/tice1_pic04.html
and
http://www.peterfetterman.com/artists/tice/tice.html
and
http://www.bluerodeo.com/br/inbetween.html
Compare the results.
Michael Scarpitti
This, I like very much. I've done similar stuff.
Michael Scarpitti
> > > I think that you'd better take a much closer look at the Weston
> reference.
> >
> > OK, where's a link to it?
> >
>
> At this time, I cannot find a viable URL to the image that compares with the
> version I have in front of me in printed (halftone) form. Most pages
> reference http://www.photocollect.com/thumnail/jeffers3.jpg. My reference is
> from:
This is superior to Tice's Amish lad, but not a great deal better. I'd
give it a C or C+. There seems to be some modelling and shadow, though
there is a bit too much DOF for my taste.
> > Nor were the subjects eyes in the Crawford reference...
> >
> > ...perhaps,
>
> Can I consider the "perhaps" as a concession on that particular point?
The intention is somewhat different in a glamour shot. At least her
eyes look like a living human's.
> > > > > Repeat: "The JPEGs as presented on the web do no justice to the
> work."
> > > >
> > > > That has nothing to do with it.
I'm talking about the non-existent shadows and flat lighting, not the
obviously flatish scan. I realize there are more tones in the print.
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the charcter of
the light, the excessive DOF, and the stilted look of the whole
effort.
>
> Make an experiment of it:
> Select a few photos from your library of photographers' books. Search the
> web for those particular photos. (Google worked well enough, entering the
> photographer's name within quotes followed by a space and the name of the
> photograph, also in quotes)
I'm going to try to get some of the work of Gotthard Schuh scanned
from a book and send it to you. His is the kind of work that shames
Tice's stilted stuff. Tice's work looks like he spent six weeks lining
up the shot, and made everybody wait until he got it, like the aunt at
weddings who can never force herself to press the damned shutter
button!
Dan Quinn
> Not true. Many of his images are straight prints.
Just as I thought. Also, I believe it safe to say, not a star, graduated,
center spot, mist, fog, soft focus, or multi-waterfall filter ever used!
Dan
Michael Scarpitti
That's not what I mean by 'manipulated'.